Distribution Range and Richness of Plant Species Are Predicted to Increase by 2100 due to a Warmer and Wetter Climate in Northern China

Abstract

The warming global climate is threatening terrestrial ecosystem stability, including plant community structure and diversity. However, it remains unclear how distribution, richness, and turnover of plant species are impacted by warming and wetting in northern China. In the present study, species distribution models were applied to predict the spatial distribution of 5111 plant species based on 111,071 occurrence records in northern China. Additionally, variations in species richness and turnover rates were predicted for 2100 under 3 scenarios. The results indicated that approximately 70% of plant species will expand in their distribution, resulting in an increase in species richness. These changes will be driven mainly by temperature seasonality (TSN), annual precipitation (MAP), and mean temperature of the coldest quarter (MTCQ). However, about 30%-40% of the species will face extinction risks, including a considerable number of endemic and Red-Listed species, and suitable habitat loss (LSH) will exceed 30%. Narrow-ranging species will be more likely to lose a larger percentage of their suitable habitats than wide-ranging species, highlighting their sensitivity to environmental changes. Importantly, it emerged that species turnover rates will increase linearly with ecological vulnerability at the grid level, indicating that community structure and species composition are easily affected by climate change in ecologically vulnerable areas. Therefore, biodiversity hotspots with high species richness in the southern study areas, as well as regions exhibiting both fast species turnover and significant ecological vulnerability, should be prioritized for conservation. These findings provide insights into how species composition and richness in plant communities vary with global climate change and provide effective ecological conservation and management strategies.

Keywords: climate change; land cover; potential distribution range; species distribution model; species richness.

FIGURE 1

The percentage of plant species changing habitat suitability (CSH) in the future under three climate and land cover change scenarios (SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, SSP5‐8.5). (a) All plants. (b) Annual herbs. (c) Perennial herbs. (d) Woody plants. Border color represents narrow‐ranging species, and fill color represents wide‐ranging species.

FIGURE 2

The percentage of plant species losing suitable habitat (LSH) in the future under three climate and land cover change scenarios (SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, SSP5‐8.5). (a) All plants. (b) Annual herbs. (c) Perennial herbs. (d) Woody plants. Border color represents narrow‐ranging species, and fill color represents wide‐ranging species.

FIGURE 3

The relationship between the percentage of potential distribution range changes (CSH) and the percentage of suitable habitat loss (LSH) in the future under three climate and land cover change scenarios (SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, SSP5‐8.5). (a) Narrow‐ranging. (b) Wide‐ranging.

FIGURE 4

The migration distances and directions of species. (a) Migration distances and directions of narrow‐ranging species. Colors indicate migration distance; numbers denote the number of species. (b) Migration distances and directions of wide‐ranging species. (c) Main migration directions of all species. The background map shows elevations. Ellipses are standard deviation ellipses generated from the centroids of species' potential distributions under different climate scenarios using the “Directional Distribution” tool in ArcGIS. They summarize spatial characteristics such as central tendency, dispersion, and directional trends. The blue arrow indicates the dominant migration direction. Map lines delineate study areas and do not necessarily depict accepted national boundaries.

FIGURE 5

Spatial distribution patterns of the percentage of species richness for narrow‐ and wide‐ranging species in the current period and under three future climate and land cover change scenarios (SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, SSP5‐8.5). (a) Narrow‐ranging species. (b) Wide‐ranging species. Map lines delineate study areas and do not necessarily depict accepted national boundaries.

FIGURE 6

Future trends in plant species richness patterns of narrow‐ and wide‐ranging species across different lifeforms under three climate and land cover change scenarios (SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, SSP5‐8.5). Yellow indicates a decrease and green indicates an increase. The deeper the color, the greater the magnitude of change. The numbers in the figure indicate the percentage of the study area covered by regions with an increase (green) or decrease (orange) in richness. Map lines delineate study areas and do not necessarily depict accepted national boundaries.

FIGURE 7

Importance of environmental factors and relationships between the percentage of suitable habitat loss (LSH) of the species and changes in the environmental variables based on beta regression models. (a, b) Narrow‐ranging species. (c, d) Wide‐ranging species. Δ: the change in environmental variables between the current and future scenarios; Crop: crop land; ELE_range: elevation range; Forested: forest land; Grazing: grazing land; MAP: annual precipitation; MAP_range: annual precipitation range; MAT: annual mean temperature; MDR: mean diurnal range; MTCQ: mean temperature of coldest quarter; Non‐forested: non‐forest land; PDQ: precipitation of driest quarter; PSN: precipitation seasonality; TSN: temperature seasonality; Urban: urban land.

FIGURE 8

Species turnover rate in the study area in the future under three climate and land cover change scenarios (SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, SSP5‐8.5). (a–c) Species turnover rate at the grid level. Red dots represent areas with significantly fast species turnover rates; blue dots represent areas with significantly slow species turnover rates; those that are not significant are not displayed. (d–f) Relationship between species turnover and the ecological vulnerability index. (g) Priority conservation areas but not covered by nature protected areas. Gray represents mountains, green represents protected areas, and yellow represents deserts or sand. (h) The ecological vulnerability of priority conservation areas located outside the boundaries of protected areas (unprotected areas) and other areas. Map lines delineate study areas and do not necessarily depict accepted national boundaries.